329

Texas firm allegedly behind fake Biden robocall that told people not to vote (arstechnica.com)

submitted 9 months ago by DannyMac@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

23 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 24 points 9 months ago

Seems like this should fall under 18 U.S. Code § 912 - Officer or employee of the United States

Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

It would hinge on whether or not the company could be said to have obtained a "thing of value(PDF)" which if you read the linked PDF you'll see is a complicated question. This passage from the PDF seems relevant to me.

The words “thing of value” “are found in so many criminal statutes throughout the United States that they have in a sense become words of art,” wrote the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. “The word ‘thing’ notwithstanding, the phrase is generally construed to cover intangibles as well as tangibles.”Federal courts have consistently applied an expansive reading to the term “thing of value” in a variety of statutory contexts to include goods and services that have tangible, intangible, or even merely perceived benefits, for example: promises, information, testimony, conjugal visits, and commercially worthless stock.

I would say that gaining the benefit of influencing the outcome of an election should be considered a thing of value for this purpose. If the authorities do not come down hard on this behavior then there is no reason for the billionaire class not to bury every election in false and misleading robocalls that seem to come from reliable and trusted sources.

[-] docAvid@midwest.social 6 points 9 months ago

I agree with your reasoning, but wouldn't this still allow for faking candidates who are not currently in office? We should, if we don't already, have laws to protect the interest of the public in having reliable information.

[-] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

I agree with you 100%. We really do need laws require some sort of political truth in advertising.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 1 points 9 months ago

Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This is about pretending to be an officer of the US and getting something because of the office, not pretending to be someone who happens to be an officer of the US and acting in their private capacity. Impersonating a police officer and telling people it's illegal to vote is a special crime, impersonating Joe, who happens to work as a police officer, and telling his Facebook friends it's a waste of time to vote is not.

this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024

329 points (98.5% liked)

politics

19144 readers

1457 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News